Order List of 5-16-2008 [Updatedx2]

The Texas Supreme Court issued six merits decisions with today’s order list, as well as a revised opinion in another case that was issued along with a denial of a motion for rehearing.

Updated: Just to clear up one possible confusion that may be afflicting some corporate readers or traders: This afternoon the Court wasis scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case In re Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 08-0289, which is the pending Clear Channel merger litigation. In this morning’s order list, the Court issued a per curiam opinion disposing of a different case that happens to have the same caption — In re Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., No. 06-0886. (( In modern Texas appellate practice, mandamus actions are given the caption “In re…” and the name of the relator, the party seeking mandamus relief. The caption does not reflect the name of the person against whom relief is sought. For frequent litigants, this means an abundance of cases with the same caption. As you might imagine, the caption “In re State of Texas” has been used many, many times in the appellate courts since this rule change. )) You don’t get to take the afternoon off (and neither does the Court). The Court has granted the parties’ motion to abate that argument, however, so we’ll all have to wait a little while longer. The order reflecting the abatement was issued yesterday.

Summaries of today’s opinions will follow in separate blog posts.

The Court also took fourthree new cases today: It granted two new petitions for review — Smith v. O’Donnell, No. 07-0697, and Marks v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital, No. 07-0783. And it “set for oral argument” the petition for writ of mandamus in In re Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 07-0665. Update: In addition, the Court also granted rehearing of a petition for review that it had previously denied in City of Pasadena v. Smith, No. 06-0948. That case will now also be decided on its merits.

Despite the nomenclature “set for oral argument,” (( For petitions for review that percolate up through the normal appellate process, the Court “grants the petition” to indicate that it has accepted a case for review on the merits. But for petitions for mandamus, the Court uses the different (and sometimes slightly confusing) terminology that it has “set [the mandamus petition] for oral argument”. )) the Court has not yet set argument dates for these fourthree cases or for nine other pending cases in which review has already been granted. Today’s granted cases will probably be argued in late September or early October.